‘The claimant reinsurer, a German company, engaged the defendant, a Swiss company, to provide loss-adjusting services in joint instruction with another reinsurer, AIG, a New Zealand-based company, which was already instructing the defendant. When a dispute arose between the claimant and the defendant concerning the performance of its loss-adjusting services, the claimant brought proceedings in England on the basis that it had contracted with the defendant on terms contained in a master agreement made between the defendant and another AIG company which provided for application of English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. The claimant served the proceedings on the defendant, relying on article 23 of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007. The defendant, denying that the terms of the master agreement had been incorporated into its contract with the claimant, applied to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.’

The first and second claimant employees were, it was assumed for present purposes, employed by the defendant employer under civil service terms and conditions and various collective agreements. Under “check-off arrangements” in the employer’s deductions from pay policy, the employees had opted for their subscriptions to the third claimant trade union to be paid by deduction from their salary and paid by the employer to the union. Latterly the check-off arrangements had been included in the employer’s salary policy published on the staff intranet. When the employer ended the check-off arrangements, the claimants brought a claim against it, contending that the employees had a contractual right to insist that the employer continue with the arrangement enforceable by the trade union under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

‘An incapacitated adult (“K”), who had been severely injured in a road traffic accident, was awarded substantial damages in court proceedings which were used by his property and affairs deputy, a private trust corporation, to provide a specially adapted residence and to fund the regime of care and support provided by private sector providers. The local authority, having been informed of the arrangements for K’s care and the arrangements having been registered with the Care Quality Commission, applied to the Court of Protection for a welfare order under section 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The parties accepted that the arrangements constituted a deprivation of liberty satisfying two of three components of a deprivation of liberty within article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but the Secretary of State contended that the third component, namely the attribution of responsibility to the state, did not apply to the privately funded and arranged care regime (and to others in an equivalent position), so that the care regime could lawfully be put in place without a welfare order being made under the Act.’

‘The man who defeated Isle of Wight Council in a high-profile court battle over the enforcement of a fine imposed for taking his daughter to Florida during term time has unveiled plans to take forward group litigation.’

‘The senior costs judge has slashed a claimant’s costs bill in a high-profile media case because of the proportionality tests brought in by the Jackson reforms – despite deeming it to be ‘reasonable and necessary’.’

‘What gives you the right? We are familiar with rights claiming, it comes easily to our lips when we believe we are entitled to something—to respect, to our fair share. Rights are fighting words. We invoke them when we have been wronged, when a situation has become intolerable. Rights claims are a way of fighting for control.’

‘Can a senior employee be ordered to pay back his past contractual remuneration to his employer as a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty, in particular a duty to confess his own wrongdoing? There has been an increasing trend over the past few years for employers, outraged at the belatedly discovered wrongdoing of a trusted senior employee, to not only seek to justify summary dismissal on the basis of after-discovered gross misconduct but also to go a step further and try to recover the salaries or bonuses already paid to the employee prior to discovery of the misconduct.’

‘The London Borough of Southwark has decided to repay 48,000 current and former tenants £28.6m following a High Court ruling earlier this year that it had overcharged for water and sewerage for 12 years.’

‘It would be “wrong in principle” for the High Court to rule on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between two companies ahead of any actual proceedings, as this would deny the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, a judge has found.’

‘Prosecutors are set to announce that they are bringing no charges following a police investigation into MI6’s involvement in the kidnapping of two families who were “rendered” to the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons, despite protests by the victims and their lawyers that the evidence against the agency is overwhelming.’

‘Midwives have called for renewed efforts to tackle female genital mutilation (FGM) after more than 1,200 cases were recorded across England in just three months. This includes 11 Britons who were identified as being subject to FGM.’

Sign up for the daily email

“I cannot praise highly enough the Inner Temple Library blog. The librarians provide a comprehensive survey of the legal world as they locate and dispense relevant information from a wide variety of sources, from government websites, to professional organisations in addition to both mainstream and legal media; it is rather like having your own personal desktop librarian hunting out interesting articles for you.”